Wednesday, August 26, 2009

So what's the reaction when Palestinians kill Palestinians?

I must say at the outset, murder is horrible and an offense to God, no matter who does it or who gets it. But when it comes to Palestinians, there seems to be outrage that far surpasses the slaughter of other innocents. I have pondered the implications of this phenomenon for some time now, and now I have more to ponder.

What are the implications of this fact: when Palestinians kill Palestinians, there seems to be no outrage whatsoever. I've not concluded that this is a double standard, but it certainly seems to be. What do you guys think?

On August 15th Hamas militiamen attacked a Mosque in Rafah in the Gaza Strip. Inside were extremists from the Jund Ansar Allah group (JAA). JAA were so extreme they viewed Hamas almost as liberals.

They had declared Gaza an Islamic state and challenged Hamas to enter the Mosque. 'No problem' said Hamas.

In the assault Hamas desecrated holy ground, firing rocket and after rocket at the Mosque, some hit surrounding houses. It would be reasonable to assume that at least one Holy Koran may have been damaged.

After they took the building they rounded up the survivors. Mobile phone footage shows what appears to be Hamas men 'executing' some of them.

It is not hard evidence, but local reporters say that is what happened, and the footage is certainly of the aftermath of the attack. Audio material has Hamas commanders ordering the killings.

81 comments:

I predict NO protests from Muslims at all.If it were the Europeans,Americans,Hindus or Israelis then there would be condemnation.

The same thing happened when the SUNNI terrorists started blowing up SHIA MOSQUES in Iraq.In fact it appears most Muslims consider those suicide bombers as resistance fighters against US imperialism,freedom fighters against American oppression.

I had written about this behaviour by Muslims,they only protest in a widespread way when it is NON-MUSLIMS who do something to them.

In a debate between SHMULEY BOTEACH,Orthodox rabbi,friend of MICHAEL BROWN,who he has debated,check out youtube, the following was said.First SHABIR ALLY said that if the Palestinian terrorists were that then Jews should also condemn Samson as a terrorist.Secondly that Boteach didnt answer the question.It seems as though NEITHER had read the story of Samson.

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

The Hamas,Hizbollah and Al-Qaida terrorists are that because they intentionally kill innocent men,women and children as part of their military plan.They try to kill as many as they can.But in the Samson story we have a different situation,it turns out that Samson was made a prisoner by the Philistines.And they had contempt for Yahweh.In the story they had a religious destival in honor of their god and they decided to bring out Samson as proof that their god was greater than God.It was a religious ceremony offensive to God,and Samson knew it.

He decided to show God was greater and asked God to help him by punishing the Philisitnes.

THE TEXT

Judges 16:23-30: Now the rulers of the Philistines assembled to offer a GREAT SACRIFICE to DAGON their god and to celebrate, saying, "Our god has delivered Samson, our enemy, into our hands." When the people saw him, they praised their god, saying, "Our god has delivered our enemy into our hands, the one who laid waste our land and multiplied our slain."

While they were in high spirits, they shouted, "Bring out Samson to entertain us." So they called Samson out of the prison, and he performed for them. When they stood him among the pillars, Samson said to the servant who held his hand, "Put me where I can feel the pillars that support the temple, so that I may lean against them."

Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about 3000 MEN and WOMEN watching Samson perform. Then Samson prayed to the LORD, "O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. "

COMMENT: notice it says the ones killed were men and women,it doesnt mention children.It seems it was a religious ceremony it which only adults participated and they were saying a false god was greater than God.

Again,Shabir Ally either does not know how to research and analyze or he says incomplete info in order to win a debate.

I think the issue (intra-religious violence) has always been an emotive one but a more emotive and inflammatory issue is an inter-religion issue.

This is one of the generic reasons, I guess, there is more reaction when Muslims are down-trodden by non-Muslims. The same holds true for other faith groups. In India, Hindu on Hindu violence stirs up less 'galvanisation' of Hindus than Hindu on non-Hindu (Sikh, Christian or Muslim).

I would not try to use this basic human reaction to try and have a dig at Muslims.

When will this site give us a break!

Allah knows the site owners intentions, may Allah guide them and all of us. Ameen

Peace

I hope you are enjoying and doing well (spiritually and physically) theis Ramadan.

"'I would not try to use this basic human reaction to try and have a dig at Muslims.

When will this site give us a break!""

Yayha Snow, several Christian pastors have been recently beheaded in Indonisia for the crime of simply being a Christian you say you want a break.. when will ISLAM give OTHER relgions a break? Why cant an Muslim covert to Christianity without the THREAT OF DEATH??

God is not mocked , Islam is reaping what it has sown , Violence for Violence!

Yahya Snow said:This is one of the generic reasons, I guess, there is more reaction when Muslims are down-trodden by non-Muslims. The same holds true for other faith groups. In India, Hindu on Hindu violence stirs up less 'galvanisation' of Hindus than Hindu on non-Hindu (Sikh, Christian or Muslim).

I would not try to use this basic human reaction to try and have a dig at Muslims.

I'm with you, Yahya. This is true for all events--political, cultural, etc.

My prayers are with all those who suffer from the conflict. May God comfort them and fill them with His love.

You said:I think the issue (intra-religious violence) has always been an emotive one but a more emotive and inflammatory issue is an inter-religion issue.

You seem have an excuse for everything! It is not hard to notice that the scale of muslim on muslim violence for religious reasons is unmatched!

When will this site give us a break!

I think the objective of this site is to expose false Islamic claims such as Islam is a religion of peace, there is science in the Quran, Mohammed was a prophet etc. and it is doing a great job exposing such claims.

All those Islamic websites are good at one thing, that is, pulling the wool over the gullibles' eyes. For example, just because "the Quran in chapter 2 and verse 168 teaches us that the Devil is an enemy to mankind", it does not mean the Quran is not from the Devil. The Devil is so cunning he can quote scriptures and in the Quran's case, he even portrays himself as an enemy of mankind in order to give credibility to the Satanic verses.

Yahya Snow is a fake and not sincere. I have always read his comment which doesnt make any sense. As we know muslims are killed more by muslims but we dont see rage around d world against this as we see when Israel or Usa does.This taught me a basic things is that, Muslims love killing. If they dont kafirs, then adjust with Muslims. War, hate and revenge is in their blood.

Minoria: Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about 3000 MEN and WOMEN watching Samson perform. Then Samson prayed to the LORD, "O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. "

This is the fundamental difference between Samson and the murderous Muslim terrorists.

When you read the story of Samson, you will see that God gave Samson certain super powers with which Samson could not be overpowered by the enemy. Samson could not do anything out of the ordinary without the powers that God gave him. This means that when Samson took down the pillars of that temple, he could have only done so with the power of God. He couldn’t have done it on his own. This is conclusive evidence that what he did was completely within the will of God, since the extraordinary powers with which he performed the act, could only come from God.

On the other hand you have the random homicide bombings (that is what they are, NOT suicide bombings). What super natural powers does one need to do this? NONE! All you need is a good dose of brainwashing and a promise on a ‘better life” after you have pushed that red button. In other words, any lunatic can strap a bomb belt around his waist and blow himself up amidst a crowd in the sick and perverted hope that he kills as many others as possible only to hope for a greater reward as the body count increases. The irony is that you see this exact same behaviour in the biography Sirat Rasulullah of Ibn Ishaq, yet Muslims totally repudiate this work because it portrays Muhammad as the leader of a terrorist organization called Muslims, enticing people to kill for him in the face of promise of a paradise filled with booze and babes.

That is the fundamental difference between Samson and Muslim lunatics. It is without question that Samson had God’s backing, it is completely questionable that Muslims blow themselves into paradise with God’s backing. Yet Muslims seek refuge to this one isolated event of Samson to justify their murderous doctrine of assurance of paradise through death in Jihad.

I agree that the response of intra-religious violence will usually be different than inter-religious violence but I think a more subtle point is being made. Often to those outside of Islam looking in it seems that there is no response at all to inter-religious violence.

In Christianity for example when a professing Christian kills an abortionist there is a great soul searching in our community and Christian leaders are quick to denounce the action.

Perhaps the same sort of thing goes on in your community and we on the outside just aren’t aware.

From a public relations standpoint it would be good if we could see some outrage or sorrow at any violence perpetrated by Muslims.

I think the reason why a goup of Muslims so easily attack another group,even if they are in a mosque is the following:the other group is not considered to be that of a GOOD Muslim.

WALID SHOEBAT,ex-PLO terrorist,now Christian,who was a real Judeophobe as a Muslim(you can find him in youtube) says that if somebody there in the West Bank says Hamas or Hizbullah are against Islam,are bad for killing innocent people,that person gets killed very soon.

If a group of Israelis were to be in a mosque,they would be attacked because according to the usual Muslim way of thinkig they have already DEFILED the place.So the same with the other Muslim group,it is pracically infidel to one group.

Yahya Snow are you ever going to demonstrate how any muslim in this blog "Admonished" Osama Abdullah for his statements on Islamic Romance aka, his reasons why a husband should beat his wife. Or can I just write you off as a liar?

You made a good point about that in the Hebrew scriptures the PROOF(according to the narration) that God approved of Samson's idea of killing those who were mocking him in a religious festival dedicated to the god Dagon,wa that God gave Samson SUPERNATURAL powers again.

THE WAY HE EXPRESSES HIMSELF

I have added it to my notes.SHABIR ALLY in another debate said that there were 3,000 men and women thre and no one knows how many children who got killed.

THE TEXT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING

It makes NO mention at all of children being present in the religious festival.Ally should know that.But he doesn't say it to the audience and so the audience ASSUMES that the text CLEARLY says something to the effect that children were there.

WHY EVEN MENTION IT?

The reason is that in that debate he made a comparison between the 3,000 killed by terrorists in 9/11 and the 3,000 killed by Samson.

In 9/11 some children were killed.Again,Ally seems to be trying to convince the audience Samson and the Muslim terrorists are really the same.

Point taken. Within that context, I have often wondered about it myself; however, I don't necessarily think that expression of sorrow or outrage by Muslims over intra-Islamic violence is lacking. There is much I don't understand about Muslims and the cultures in which Islam is the dominant religion; but from the little understanding that I have, I surmise they prefer to keep their own business amongst themselves, so that making public statements about tragedies such as this specific news is not a particular concern. Whatever their reasons are, I, personally, look at tragedies such as this as more of a human failing than a religious one. My heart goes to those who lost family members and friends in that attac

You said:Yahya Snow are you ever going to demonstrate how any muslim in this blog "Admonished" Osama Abdullah for his statements on Islamic Romance aka, his reasons why a husband should beat his wife. Or can I just write you off as a liar?

August 27, 2009 8:45 AM

Now Fat Man I appreciate you taking time out to converse with me but threatening to label me with such emotive description as "liar" if I do not comply with your straw-man is not the way to acquire my time.

Fat Man, I plan to do an article about wife-beating please do watch out for it. In the meant time could you furnish me with a quote from myself saying something to the effect: Abdallah has been admonished for his views on wife beating.

If you cannot, which I am sure you cannot, then I ask you to desist with your campaign.

Also I urge you to show some respect and not use such bitter sarcasm as you have just used about a very serious issue.

I am in the holy month of Ramadan, my time is more of the essence and it should be devoted to Allah even more than usual and should be working assiduously in charity, prayer, love, kindnes and fasting.

Fat Man, may Allah make you and I friends and may Allah guide and help us and our loved ones. Ameen.Peace and love.

Yahya Snow is a fake and not sincere. I have always read his comment which doesnt make any sense. As we know muslims are killed more by muslims but we dont see rage around d world against this as we see when Israel or Usa does.This taught me a basic things is that, Muslims love killing. If they dont kafirs, then adjust with Muslims. War, hate and revenge is in their blood.

August 27, 2009 1:35 AM

George, you do noteven know me yet you are having a go at me.

Also please stop generalising Muslims. There are over a billion Muslims (the largest religious group on the planet), if Muslims really loved killing then there would be nobody else left. So please stop with the gratuitous insults against 1/5 of humanity. Where is your humanity my brother?

May Allah guide us all

Peace (I know it is ironic that I,a Muslim, am signing off with peace after what you said)

Yassir Arafat and the Palastinian people sided with Saddam Husein during the first Golf War. The Palastinian people cheered as Saddam rained rockets on Israel. They even cheered when these rockets hit Palastinian viliages, such is their hatred and disdain for human life.

On 9-11 as the civilized world reeled from the shock of muslims practicing Dawah on the United States, the Palastinians cheered and handed out candy in the streets.

For these reasons above all other reasons I say let the Palastinian people ask Saddam Husein for help. They rose their fist collectivly against my nation. They celebrated as my country men died on 9-11.

What is best in life "To crush your enemies, drive them before you, and to hear the lamitations of their woman"

Thanks to these "people". I now know the beuty and joy that comes from a woman yo-lading in anguish over the loss of her children.

Sir, that is one of the most erudite posts I have seen on this forum. It certainly is a gem amongst our usual diet of stones.

The stones (usually) are the unfair attacks on Muslims bordering bigotry imo.

Howevere, going back to your post I feel you are correct but I feel the Muslim community could do more to express outrage pertaining to our intra-religious violence. This certainly would lessen the severity and even the occurence of it in the future. It would act as a uniting power too.

To be honest I feel Muslims could learn something from Christians in this regard. The Christian community is indeed older and somewhat more matured in these matters and thus rendering them as people who Muslims could learn from in this issue.

I would just like to reiterate, people on the internet who try to point scora against Muslims by bringing Muslim-Muslim clashes up are only doing so in an opportunistic and unjust fashion. It aint scholarly at all. Sadly, it is all too common that we see Christian sites using the deaths of Muslims or other groups at the hands of Muslims in order to further their anti-Islamic agendas

I feel people reading this should do soul searching and ponder upon that.

The question to ask them is; how did the Quran (which they say is from Satan) save millions of children from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (and from other alcohol related diseases) while the Bible (which they believe to be fully from God) allowed the drinking of alcohol and allowed Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to affect millions of children? Surely God gives us wholesome teachings (ie forbidding alcohol) and Satan teaches us impure teachings (ie drinking alcohol). This would leave the Christian speechless and Insha’Allah (God Willing) the honest Christian will realise that this is a sign that the Quran is from God.This argument (that Satan would not teach/promote teachings which are good or against Satan) is supported by the Bible in Mark 3:23 where the Christian is taught that Satan does not drive himself out (3). Thus the Christian would accept this Muslim response and recognise that the Quran is not from Satan.

Yahya Snow said..."In the meant time could you furnish me with a quote from myself saying something to the effect: Abdallah has been admonished for his views on wife beating."

Sure not a problem. In your post on the Osama thread dated August 21, 2009 7:36 PM

In the 10th block of your text you typed "David, please stop with the theatricals. If Abdallah did post such material then I am sure he has regretted it and Muslims have admonished him and condemned it. We all make mistakes, don't we David...just like you made a mistake in slandering me, or your childish mistake of bringing Nadir's private information to a public forum etc..."

I draw your attention to your second sentence were you typed "If Abdallah did post such material then I am sure he has regretted it and Muslims have admonished him and condemned it. "

Now as far as you wanting to be my friend. I have no problem with that. I must hold my friends to a higher standard then muslims do, becuase i can not count a liar as a friend. So if you do want to be my friend then acknowlege your statement, and explain it. Its ok if you made a mistake in your attack against David Wood. Oh one more thing, if you think you can delete it and it will all go away, you will loose any credibility that you may have had on this blog.

Sir, that is one of the most erudite posts I have seen on this forum. It certainly is a gem amongst our usual diet of stones. The stones (usually) are the unfair attacks on Muslims bordering bigotry imo.

I respond:

Yaha I’m a desperately and hopelessly selfish sinner. If there is anything nobel or good in what I write it is only because of the grace of God overruling my natural falleness.

Also please don’t mistake attacks on Islam with attacks on Muslims. The most bigoted thing we could do is be silent if we believe someone is trapped in a false soul destroying religion.

Yaha said:

To be honest I feel Muslims could learn something from Christians in this regard. The Christian community is indeed older and somewhat more matured in these matters and thus rendering them as people who Muslims could learn from in this issue.

I respond:

I would not be so quick to attribute the typical Christian response to maturity. It has been the official Christian teaching from the beginning. For example

Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21)

for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:20-21)

Torture and piety are widely different; nor is it possible for truth to be united with violence, or justice with cruelty………Lactantius

Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sin……Clement of Alexandria

the Lord shall save them in that day, even His people, like sheep…………No one gives the name of sheep to those who fall in battle with arms in hand, and while repelling force with force, but only to those who are slain, yielding themselves up in their own place of duty and with patience, rather than fighting in self-defense…. Tertullian

often Christians have fallen short of our calling but the calling was always there.

Where does it say in the Bible that alcohol is allowed? Say for argument's sake it is allowed. Even then it's not the Bible's fault that people misuse it. Sex is allowed, but people abuse it. Is it the Bible's fault? So your website does not make sense.

The Quran is Satan's masterpiece and ultimate in trickery so Satan sprinkles some good teachings along with lots of bad ones in the Quran. That is the ultimate form of deception. Like I said, Satan even quotes scriptures. Mark 3:23 is about possession so there is no need to stretch it.

You said:The stones (usually) are the unfair attacks on Muslims bordering bigotry imo.

You are highly biased in favor of Islam and Muslims, but that is understandable. But, what you don't understand is the Quran itself is an unfair attack on Christians and Christianity. It has verses against Christians and it denies the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.That itself is an unfair attack.

Yahya Snow you are too emotional and incapable off a calm debate... thate sais a lott aboutt your believe and religion integrety... that's why youre commentes need, less and less, any answer: they are underminding youre, now att it's lowest point, credebilitty... to sad. My prayer to The Holy Trinity are withe you... you seem a good person, butt rather desesperatte and thate turns you awya from peace, love, tolerance and truth... to sad indeed... may Jesus help you

Yahya Snow said ...."The question to ask them is; how did the Quran (which they say is from Satan) save millions of children from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (and from other alcohol related diseases) while the Bible (which they believe to be fully from God) allowed the drinking of alcohol and allowed Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to affect millions of children? "

Yahya Snow thank you again for another attack on Gods Word. It is amazing how self righteous Muslims can be in regards to the consumption of alcohol never realizing how such a prohibition is actually an attack on civilization.

First Yahya Snow lets talk about Gods gift Alcohol. As someone who brews his own beer and has just expermented with Mede I know a thing or two about the science, art and history of fermented grains and fruits.

There is some dispute over which came first, bread or beer. However what is not in dispute is the fact that Fermentation as a way of food preservation is in fact one of the primary forces that made it possible for man to go from hunter gatherer, to an agrarian society there by allowing the development of civilizations.

Before modern day refigeration and food preservation techniques man needed a way to preserve grains, and fruit he grew out of Gods good earth. Fermentation is a perfect natural way to preserve these crops. For instance Beer preserves the grains, and the nutrients with in those grains. Beer is rich in Vitamin B1, as well as other vitamins and nutrients found in the various grains used to produce it. Grapes and other fruits fermented into wines contain the nutrients of these fruits, Vitamin A, B1, B2, Niacin, Foliate, Panthonic Acid, B6, C, E, and Vitamin K. The 11 percent Alcohol contained in wine, and the 6 to 12 percent alcohol contained in beer, allows these nutrients to stay preserved for a long time.

Also before modern water treatment techniques Alcohol a natural antiseptic was mixed with Water to kill bacteria, viruses, and parasites.

So here is what the Quran Prohibited when it prohibits the consumption of Alcohol. It prohibits communities of a way to store and preserver their crops. Depriving them of a food source, causing malnutrition, and even starvation. It deprives communities of a natural way to disinfect their water supply causing such lovely diseases as Botulism, Campylobacteriosis, Cholera, E Coli, and Dysentery. Protozoal Infections like Amoebiasis, Cryptosoporidiosis, and every outdoors man nightmare Giardiasis. I wont even get into the parasitic infections or the viruses. But then again your Prophet had the answer to drinking clean water “If it does not smell funny or taste funny it is good to drink” As someone who once drank from a clear mountain stream at an elevation over 11,000 feet, and became very, very sick. I can tell you that even if water does not taste or smell funny it can still make you sick and even kill you.

So in conclusion, the prohibition on Alchol actully prevents and prohibits civilizations from developing. With out the ability to preserve crops man would still be a hunter gatherer, and Children would still be suffering from Malnutrician. With out a proper way to disinfect water man and children would still suffer from water born ilnesses. Something that still happens in developing islmaic societies.

Furthermore, if Alcohol is supposedly a diabolical sin causing the death of millions of infants, why did it take Allah so long to prohibit it? Is this "gradual process" of forbiddening a legitimate explanation?

Do we "gradually" prohibit pre-marital sex for instance, Does God say: "oh you can keep having sex outside of marriage, but cut it down and soon i'll prohibit it altogether"?

This is CONCEDING to the demands of the sinners, "oh sure you can have sex outside of marriage, but tone it down a little, later on i'll prohibit it"..

Does Islam only use this reasoning with Alcohol or other there other MAJOR SINS Allah decided to "tone down for a while, then stop", i'm guessing one other one may have been polygamous marital relationships being knocked down to four, and then the Quran even implying one is best.

Which MAJOR SINS, does Islam NOT do this with?

What SINS are important enough to ALWAYS be prohibited NO MATTER what the circumstances?

You would think if Muslims could name the "completely prohibited MAJOR SINS ALL TIMES NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES" type of sins, that such a sin like alcohol (causing millions of child deaths) would have been included? but NO!

So Islam has no "superior moral" in regards to Alcohol.

Read Sam Shamoun's article I pasted for further material on this subject.

You are right in your comment that MUSLIMS almost ONLY help MUSLIMS(like in an earthquake,drought,tsunami).I noticed that when Indonesia,Thailand and Sri lanka go hit by the tsunami.300,000 killed in a few hours.

Westerners(most of who are not Christian but influenced by the Golden Rule emphasized by Jesus)helped ALL:Hindus,Buddhists and Muslims in need.

But in the Hindu temples they usually got money only for the Hindu victims,the Buddhist temples also,and the mosques also.

" So what exactly is the truth? ALEXANDER DORIN, a Swiss researcher who just recently sent his book “Srebrenica – The History of Salon Racism” to print in German (Serb and English translations are planned in the future) said in an interview that, “After 14 YEARS of INVESTIGATING events that took place in Srebrenica in 1995 I can attest there was NO GENOCIDE over Muslims in that enclave — the MYTH about the massacre of Muslims was invented by the late Bosnian Muslim war leader ALIJA IZETBEGOVIC( MY NOTE:he was in favor of establsihing SHARIA LAW in Bosnia,so you can imagine if he ask yourself if he was 100% honest) and then-U.S. president Bill Clinton.” Questionable as that allegation may sound to many, it is important to recall that the United States actively armed Izetbegović and his ragtag jihadist army during the war, applied pressure on Tudjman’s secessionist Croat government to cease his involvement in the Herzeg-Bosnia land theft, and sought actively to create a Bosniak state where one had not traditionally existed (for the land falls within the bounds of historic Serbia). Much of this, especially the sale of arms, was documented heavily even by the liberal American media at the time. And indeed, once the other factual inaccuracies become apparent, it seems quite evident that there was not a Srebrenica massacre, but rather a military engagement that, like many US operations, involved some inadvertant civilian casualties, that has been mythologized to give political cover to the warmongers that led us into battle on intelligence information more questionable than any ever utilized by the Bush administration.

For instance, the REAL NUMBER of DEAD BODIES uncovered was closer to 2000. Some 3000 NAMES of alleged victims were ALIVE enough to VOTE in the 1996 elections. And many other dead bodies were found to be from PREVIOUS gun battles or from non-violent ends MORE than a decade BEFORE the event in question.

Still unaddressed though is guilt. Among the 2000 dead discovered were a very large number of soldiers who, under the leadership of jihadist Naser Orić KILLED some 3000 Serbian CIVILIANS BEFOREHAND. That raises perhaps the most important point: Srebrenica was not a purposeful slaughter of innocent civilians, but an effort by Serb forces to save the lives of their countrymen from an enemy army that had already spilled ample blood, and which was cowardly seeking refuge in protected civilian areas that were supposed to be unarmed, and therefore demilitarized."

I think there are good indications the event was changed by the Muslims for their cause.It has happened before and since,I would not be surprised this could be another case.

You are either misrepresenting me by dismissing the context ie what that staement pertained to or you did not bother to read further in order to seek clarification as to what myslef and David Wood were speaking of.

We were not speaking of his views on wife beating but we were speaking about his alleged claim that Christians were *** lickers.

So please stop with the misrepresenting.

I see you have a history of this tyoe of action, you insulted Yahya Seymour's wife, I will give you another chance but mark my words I will stop communicating with you if you continue down this unscholarly path.

I have no time for time-wasters. I am in the month of /ramadan, I am in the middle of a move to London, all this on top of my job, studying and article writing.

Also, a friendly word of advice, if you intimate I am a liar again then I shall cease communicating with you. If you cannot understand that the communication between David and myself then I urge you to consult David and ask him to explain it to you as nobody of any scholarly fortitude will view it the way you have misrepresented it. So I plead with you not to waste my time again. I also ask you to go away and abjure yourself as you clearly misrepresenting the quote (I think through error as opposed to anything more sinister)

The site makes sense. Read the article again. You want to know where the NT allows alcohol; I respond with a question:

Where does the NT say it is forbidden?

Exaclty!

Also, more food for thought, a Muslim could make the same argument against the trinity. It works both ways but it is not scholarly nor productive to keep repeating empty statements born out of an individual's faith in their respective religions.

Ouch! It appears I struck a raw nerve here. I am not too sure whether individuals were defending alcohol per se or whether the barrage of text sent my way was defending the Bible and its allowance of alcohol.

Perhaps, as I assume, it was a combination of both but leaning more towards the latter. Before I go into the specifics raised by you (collectively) I would like to take the opportunity to address DK;

DK I shall continue to adopt arguments of my contemporaries if I deem them to be useful so I will have to be deliberately obtuse and decline your suggestion. Also it is unfair to use the word stealing as NA has no copyright on that particular argument, however I would say the irony is immense as you refer us to Shamoun’s arguments. Also, I bet a fair number of you use arguments from Hovind/Wood/Morey/Moshay/Sina etc.

Anyhow, enough on that. Fat Man:

How in the world is my argument an attack on civilisation? My argument is against the CONSUMPTION of alcohol not the use of alcohol for medicinal purposes etc. Trust me; civilisation was not built on drunkards and alcoholics. Sobriety is key for anything of use to flourish, thus alcohol CONSUMPTION is the antithesis of that. So it does seem that you argue a straw man as you misconstrue my argument. I thought I was pretty clear in clarifying my argument sufficiently enough for the reader to be on the same page as myself. So, again you argue a straw man here my brother. Fat man, you also make out as though alcohol is the only preservative known to man. Think about it. You seem desperate to refute my argument (which was against alcohol consumption), so desperate you bypass my argument and start talking about alcohol as a preservative.

And then you move on to conflate two types of alcohol (fermented and chemical). Chemical alcohol is not something a man drinks my friend (this is the one used for sterilisation). My argument was not against this type of alcohol. You argued a straw man. I think you get the picture.

DK, you circumnavigate my argument and move the discussion onto the gradual prohibition of alcohol. That is all immaterial, the fact is Allah (our Lord) has prohibited alcohol consumption and the NT allows it. Which one is a better teaching? (Please do not argue a straw man this time; forget medicine, preservatives etc…I am talking the consumption of an intoxicant here. Is it better to allow the social consumption of this intoxicant (NT allows alcohol) or the prohibition of this intoxicant (Quran disallows it)?

I eagerly await your response, DK

Turning back to you Fat Man you said:

First Yahya Snow lets talk about Gods gift Alcohol.

I live in the UK which is being debilitated by alcohol dependency and binge drinking. Are you going to praise the drinking of alcohol (with a straight face) in front of the families ruined by alcoholics, families who have lost loved ones due to drink driving etc?

Please do not bring up preservatives, industrial and laboratory applications of alcohol again as that is not relevant. In fact I have worked with laboratory alcohol, it is useful and Islam does NOT forbid it but at the same time it is not something a man would drink.

"We were not speaking of his views on wife beating but we were speaking about his alleged claim that Christians were *** lickers."

Your first post dated "August 21, 2009 5:43 PM" on the topic of Osmama Abdulla and wife beating reads..."With regards to this comment (attributed to Abdallah), I am not sure whether Abdallah said this comment as I do not trust this site as a reliable source of information as it is agenda-driven as well as other reasons"

Now there is no mention by you or David Wood prior to this in regards to Osama's lovely article that Christians are Cum lickers.

David Wood then exposes you in a post dated August 21, 2009 6:09 PM were he does mention the "Christians are Cum Lickers" article from Osama Abdulla.

Then in your next post dated August 21, 2009 7:36 PM you typed the disputed text that Osama has been admonished and condemed by muslims for what he wrote. You actual words are "If Abdallah did post such material". You make no reference to what materials you are refering to. No mention of the "Christian are Cum Lickers" article that David mentioned in previous post. Considering the context of the Blog was Osama's reasons for wife beating, and since you did not reference by name any other posts by Osama. I dont think I or anyone else would be in error in concluding you are refereing to the reason for the Blog post in the first place. That being Osma's justification of wife beating in the QURAN.

Now I'm going to give you a pass on this one. I dont believe you. I think you did a good job covering your own behind. However since you are now claiming you were refereing to Osama's article, bashing Christians. Can you please please provide us with any documentation backing up your claim that muslim Admonished and condemmed Osama for that article?

Yahya Snow said..."I see you have a history of this tyoe of action, you insulted Yahya Seymour's wife,"

This I find the most facinating. In the post of Osama's justification for wife beating. Not a single muslim made any comment on what Osama typed. Instead you and others attacked David Wood personaly. You your self said words to the effect that David was being unfair to Osama... Of Osama Bashing... Attacking Osama and other muslims etc... etc...

Now I did make a post in response to a muslim telling me to go to hell. I responded with a blessing. Then I added the quip about the mans wife. I thought I had edited that part out before I posted it. However I was in error. The actual post was supposed to end with "Since Mohamed said that the Majority of the inhabitants of hell will be muslim woman becasue they disobeyed their husbands. I guess I wont be lonely."

However I did bring the mans wife into it and that was wrong.

Now here is the funny part. David Wood took no time in admonishing me, and condemming what I typed. In his words "Fatman UNACCEPTABLE... delete your comment" Which I did as well as appologised to Yahya Seymour who I did not even know had a wife.

So you can see that your attacks on David Wood are unfounded. He rebuked me for my rude comment, and had me delete it. However I recieved no appology from Yahya cursing me to hell? And I see no condemnation or rebuke from any muslim twords Yahya Seymour for cursing me to hell. I guess its true that muslims praise us to our faces and then curse us under their breath. What a nice relegion you have where cursing people to hell is par for the corse.

Yahya SnowYou keep posting that this is Ramadan and you are busying during Ramadan, and have a happy ramadan, and Ramadan this and Ramadan that.

Ramadan; The joyeous month where Muslim wake up early, binge and gourge themselves with food. Then purge themselves of food and water through out the day. Walking around with sunken eyes telling everyone they meet its Ramadan, and how you are starving yourself for allah, and ohh look at how relegious I am because I'm fasting during ramandan. Hey brother did you know its Ramadan are you fasting for ramadan like me. Look at how sunken my eyese are and how tired I look I'm fasting during ramadan. Becasue I'm so relegious. I love allah so much see I'm fasting during ramadan.

Then you Binge and Gourge yoursleves again at night fall, then go to sleep and wake up and Binge and purge all over again. WOw yeah be happy with that.

I point that out to you becasue you keep telling us how its Ramadan in your posts. And how you are drawing attention to yourself that you are observing your relegion by Binging and Purging.

Here is what Jesus Christ said on Fasting.

"16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Mathew 6:16-18)

A wise man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can from a mountain top. -- Unknown

mohammed, on his mountain top, could see neither the filth of a garbage dump of a well (spring) filled with animal carcasses, human excrement, and menstrual rags , nor the obvious and proven medicinal qualities of fermented fruits and grains.

Abu Dawood ,Book 1, Number 0066:

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:The people asked the Messenger of Allah (removed): Can weperform ablution out of the well of Buda'ah, which is a well intowhich menstrual clothes, dead dogs and stinking things were thrown? Hereplied: Water is pure and is not defiled by anything.

Abu Dawood,Book 1, Number 0067:Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah(removed): Water is brought for you from the well ofBuda'ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes andexcrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah(removed) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiledby anything.

Tafsir Qurtubi, chapter vol 13, page 51Prophet drank dirty water from Budaah well and performed wudu with it.

so mohammed, in his allah-given wisdumb and scientific insight, says that filthy water contaminated by menstrual rags, animal carcasses, and human excrement, is clean and potable, and that alcohol, in the form of wine or strong drink, which has been used medicinally since almost the beginning of man’s history, is forbidden to man. my personal opinion is that mohammed couldn’t control his self when imbibing wine,,, or around women. thus we have the prohibition against alcohol, and the wearing of garbage sacks by mohammedan women. and then ironically we have a mohammedan heaven which essentially consists of two major components: wine and women. now how fake and transparent is that? i bet y’all can’t wait to die so’s that y’all can get toasted and laid. now that’s heaven, eh boys? mohammedan heaven is a frat-house. all of the koran and the relative traditions prove mohammed out to be an ignorant, lecherous sot.

now the Word of G_d gives a totally differing perspective on alcohol. the Word of G_d treats the subject of alcohol/wine openly, and gives a good balanced view of wine’s usefulness, uses, effects, and warnings against over indulgence. the first reference to alcohol/wine implies one risk of over indulging; losing control and exposing one’s self to humiliation (genesis 9:20-21).

here are some scriptural warnings against the over-imbibing of alcohol (it was forbidden for the priests of the temple to drink wine when performing their duties in the temple);

Pro 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

Pro 21:17 He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man: he that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich. (seems to be speaking of gluttony also)

Pro 23:29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? Pro 23:30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Pro 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. Pro 23:32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.

Pro 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Pro 31:5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.

from the new testament:

Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

Pro 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Pro 31:7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

1Ti 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

So again, the bible gives a balanced view of alcohol consumption. Alcohol was used in trade, as a dinner beverage, in celebration, as part of the sacrificial offering, as tithes, as medicine, and on and on.

Following is just a snippet of an article, one of untold thousands, which speaks to the health benefits of wine consumption. Many articles also recognize the risks of over-indulgence.

New research is uncovering the disease-prevention secrets of a polyphenol called resveratrol, one of compounds in red wine that seems to improve health. Although the benefits have been touted for years, researchers weren't sure how polyphenols, and resveratrol in particular, worked in the body.

"The breadth of benefits is remarkable -- cancer prevention, protection of the heart and brain from damage, reducing age-related diseases, such as inflammation, reversing diabetes and obesity, and many more," said Lindsay Brown, an associate professor of the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Queensland in Australia and co-author of a study that will appear in the September issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.Brown said scientists are beginning to understand how resveratrol does its work. Possible mechanisms include:High doses of the compound may prevent cancer by increasing the process of apoptosis (programmed cell death). Low doses improve cardiac health by increasing cellular protection and reducing damage. Resveratrol may help remove very reactive oxidants in the body and improve blood supply to cells.

It is really just about balance, temperance, judgment. Those who will have a drink may do so. those who cannot drink, shouldn’t. or, those who can shouldn’t under certain circumstances. Balance, temperance, judgment. i’m not a wine-bibber, but i have an ocassional beer. i’ve over-indulged in my past, and i can attest that everything the bible says about over-indulging is true. it really, really hurts.

you know, i just can’t imagine living my whole life refraining from drinking alcohol-laden drinks, and then spending eternity doing laps in a pool of sangria with bikini clad eternal virgins. sounds like a hedonistic paradise, not the Presence of G_d.

Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord G_d unspeakable, His Holy Lamb, and His Very Spirit. May His Light shine in your darkened heart, and may you come to His grace, His love,,, to Jesus. Amen

You said that the Bible allowed alcohol which is not true. NT neither allows nor prohibits it.

It is not alcohol that is the problem, but abuse of it. Also, read Dk's comments above about what is the Quran's attitude was towards alcohol and how Allah conveniently (for Mohammed) changed his mind. So it is not a sign that the Quran is from God.

Smoking kills a lot of people. So smoking must be from Satan. Then why didn't Allah forsee smoking and prohibit it in the Quran?

Thomas Jeffersonin his letter to James Smith, said that "Paul was ... the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." (Works, 1829 edition, vol. 4, p. 327.) and yet another English thinker and play writer George Bernard Shaw, is widely quoted as having said that: "...it would have been a better world if Paul had never been born."

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" -Jesus

Romans 10:4: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for every one who believes." -paul

Romans 3:28 (Paul)a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from WORKS of the law.

Yahya Snow said…“And then you move on to conflate two types of alcohol (fermented and chemical). Chemical alcohol is not something a man drinks my friend (this is the one used for sterilisation). My argument was not against this type of alcohol. You argued a straw man. I think you get the picture.”

I think you are confused sir. I was talking specifically about Ethanol. This type of Alcohol is made by fermenting the starches and sugars from grains and fruits using two types of yeast. Either Saccharomyces cerevisiae or S. carlsburgiensis. I never once mentioned isopropyl, methyl, or Methanol. I spoke of turning fruits and grains into beer, and wine as a way of preserving those food stuffs, and of mixing wine or beer with water as a way of disinfecting it. If you use any of the other alcohols to disinfect water, you will either go blind, or die. As the liver breaks down those types of Alcohol into a form of anti freeze good in your car, not in your body. .

You also said …. “Trust me; civilization was not built on drunkards and alcoholics. Sobriety is key for anything of use to flourish, thus alcohol CONSUMPTION is the antithesis of that.”

First I never said it was. My reference to civilization is that fermenting cereal and fruit crops allowed these food stuffs to be preserved. There by allowing the production of crops in exes to a groups daily needs. The point is that cultivating the land, clearing away forests, tilling the ground, planting, watering, weeding and harvesting is labor intensive. If you can not preserve your crops and they spoil. Then the time and labor required to grow these crops is not justifiable. It is a waist of resources i.e. labor. So you see the discovery of alcohol (ethanol) allowed man to go from Hunter gatherer to an agrarian society. Allowing the justification of the labor to produce food stuff in execs of the daily need. Put in another way, in every archeological dig where man is raising planting and harvesting crops you will find two things. One a grainery, and two a brewery or winery. Again I say there is a dispute among archoligist of which came first Beer or Bread. The meaning of this is that it has not been determined if turning grains into bread or turning them into beer allowed for the development of agriculture. It is the development of agriculture that spawned civilizations. How you confused this with industrial alcohol I will never know. So it is you who just attacked a straw man.

You also said…“Please do not bring up preservatives, industrial and laboratory applications of alcohol again as that is not relevant.”

Well I never did bring that up in the first place. Industrial alcohol is not used in food preservation or in food preparation or in food or water of any kind. Consumption of only 10 ML will cause blindness and possible death. So the point is that your Allah condemned millions if not billions of children to be exposed to all kinds of water born illnesses, because he forbade the drinking of alcohol. He also condemned them to malnutrition because he forbade children and adults from ingesting the vitamins and minerals contained in the fermented wines and grains. Also ever notice there is nothing in the quran on agriculture, no rules or regulations on growing food. That’s because you don’t need to raise food when you can just steal it from those that do grow it. Like Jews and Christians.

My next post will deal with your accusation that the Bible allows binge drinking and alcoholism. But I have to go to bed.

Fat Man…If you cannot tell that the comment in question was in response to David Wood’s information about the *** licker article attributed to Abdallah. If he did that then I say he was incorrect. But the fact of the matter is you distorted the comment by trying to attribute it to Abdallah’s wife beating comments and tried to defame me via this road. Again, I ask you take this up with an arbiter such as Wood so he can clarify to you what I meant as you seem like you are unwilling or incapable of deducting truth from this conversation. So please PM Wood (or any other third party, i.e. FifthMonarchy or Minoria) I am sure they will explain my comment was about the *** licker article attributed to Abdallah. So please stop with this misrepresenting and try apologising.

Now my references to Ramadan are out of joy that it is here and also designed to show you that I am very busy this month (not tired) hence I will not be willing to waste time on time wasters. Hence I am intimating to those around me not to waste my time; you seem like you are not complying with this intimated request of mine. My threat of ceasing to communicate with you is real if you continue down this route of attributing misrepresented material to me. I ask you to desist!

For your information; a Muslim is discouraged from gouging and binge eating in Ramadan; it is better to stay a little hungry even at permissible eating times. So please do brush up on how Muslims should observe Ramadan. Again, you do not know me, you still suggest I am binge eating. Please stop with this too.

As for your comments about Yahya Seymour’s lack of apology to you; well I am not Yahya Seymour…take it up with him. I am Yahya Snow, same first name and same religion but not the same person.

Also you seem to forget somebody allowed your comment concerning your distasteful attack on Seymour’s wife (Wood or Qureshi?) so praising Wood for admonishing you after allowing it is a little premature as you need to ascertain why he (or Qureshi) allowed it in the first place before putting them up for human of the year.

Fat Man I would ask you to avoid emotive and combative terms such as ‘expose’ ‘cover your behind’. I am not too sure what type of conversations you have with Muslims but trust me I tend to opt for the more scholarly variety as opposed to shock-jock words and conversations. Though I do believe there is too much friction on the internet in conversations between Muslims and Christians. I will not stoop to slanging matches. It is not my style nor is it something I have time for.

Fat Man, I will await the third-party judgement and they will tell you my comment was in reference to the *** licking post from Wood. So until you bring this to the fore I will avoid communicating with you.

You can await an article by me in the future on wife beating (Insha’Allah), so please do not think Muslims are shirking the issues Christians bring to the table. We want to defend Islam as well as proclaim it in order that Christians can benefit from Islam too.

Oh Fat Man, in case you did not know; it is Ramadan. I hope you have a good Ramadan, you and your family, I hope your material struggles are removed this month my friend and I ask Allah to guide us both and get to a better understanding with each other.

I apologise if you have been hurt by my critique, my attention is not to harm feelings but to bring the truth to the fore.

Hi Krishnaraj... thanks for your quotes... nothing new, butt thankes... both authors you presented knew as much off the Holy Bible as you: almostte nothing... you're attempt to presente them to support you're infantil attempts to differt the debatte from this thread is sintomatic off a desperatte people... do you know whate bothe saide aboutte islam? no? here it's:

Thomas Jefferson: "as you know islam is the most barbaric ideology that I ever encontered in my life. I'm glad to see that between our beloved country and muslims countrys there are an ocena between" (letter to Martin Philip David, 17 March 1787)...

writer George Bernard Shaw never saide whate you presented him saying... that's a myth created by muslims... you're quite admirable in creatting lyies... njust fololowing the example off muhammad, I recon... butt,a moung other good statemenst thate express the intolerant nature and barbaric vitality off islam, he saide this about islam: "Islam is very different, being ferociously intolerant" (Letter to the Reverend Ensor Walters, 1933)...

Abbout Paul and James... wher's the difference my friend Krishnaraj? Whate Paul rejects are the value off the good works tahte are donne in the goal off expecting the salvation withoute the faithe in Christ; and wahte james rejects are the faithe thate do nott make the believer wantt to express thate faith in free and gratious relations nott imposed (as in islam) uppon anyone (whate value habe a kiss giben bie a childe iff thate was imposed by it's parents? none...)... see whate Paul saide in Gal 5,6: «in Jesus Christ only faith working through love»...

Aboutt Jesus and Paul... the law was fullfilled in Jesus as He clearly saide (Mt. 5:17): those who follow Him are no more under the antient interpretation off the law since the law was resumed in the love expressed in and by Jesus: «You heard butt I say»... Jesus in His loving liffe IS the new TORAH, the new LAW, nott written in any book, rather in His liffe...

difficult to grasp Krishnaraj? well thate does nott makke it less true... so, Krishnaraj, I wantt more examples off islamic ignorance... please: do present them... I'll see all off them...

on the other hand: are you willing to see thate muhammad was a theft, a killer, a lyers, a suicidal, a paedophilus, a womaniser and so on?

thanks in Jesus Christ our God thate I do nott follow the example off such a un-human person...

p.s.: do habe any proff, historical or biblical thate Jesus' message was corrupted bie Paul? can you presente ONLY ONE? Thankes...

My dear Yahya Snow... you're more and more in my prayers... you're in a difficult moment in your liffe... we all see thate and understand thate... you need our spiritual support now more than eber: you'll habe itt... perhaps the desesperate tone in your words are only due to this fact and nott because you're an intolerante and narcisistic person with emotional bursts thate stopp youre rational and logical habilitty to debate in a proper and human way... my deepests prayers are withe you... may Jesus, our God, help you...

I was raised in a domination of Christians that taught that alcohol was forbidden for Christians and I can tell you from experience that this (law) did not prevent the abuse of alcohol in fact I would say the forbidden nature of alcohol consumption made it’s abuse more likely among us.

We just did it in secret.

I no longer believe that drinking beer is a sin but I have not indulged in years because I simply have no desire to do so.

This phenomena is discussed at length in the Bible and it is I believe a major difference between our faiths.

Islam provides lots of rules but does not change the heart. Christianity changes the heart thus making such detailed rules unnecessary.

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:3-4)

I would like to educate you on Paul. If there ever was a person that knew and understood what the Messiah was about and what method God intended to save mankind by it must have been Paul. Those that claim that Paul contradicted Yeshua, must show HOW Paul contradicted Yeshua by ALL that Paul said and ALL that Yeshua said. But what people such as yourself do is to take what Paul said about JUSTIFICATION and SALVATION in Messiah and contrast that with GOOD WORKS of the Messiah. However, when you put the texts where the Messiah and Paul both speak about GOOD WORKS and put THOSE next to each other, you will get the same message. Also, if you put the texts where the Messiah and Paul speak of the MEANS OF SALVATION, you will get the same message. For example, Yeshua spoke of the Torah and expanded upon it in Matthew 5-7. But those things are all about GOOD WORKS. And you contrasted this with quotes from Paul that have nothing to do with Good Works, but with Salvation. If one understands that for the Messiah and the apostles Salvation through the Messiah and good works go hand in hand, Muslims wouldn’t misunderstand Paul and know what he spoke exactly in line with Yeshua. Sadly, most Christians also misunderstand Paul and think that faith alone is pleasing to God. God wants faith AND good works. It isn’t “either or” but “both and”. Now to demonstrate my point.

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother. 20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "ONE THING YOU LACK," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. THEN COME, FOLLOW ME."

32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "YOU ARE NOT FAR FROM THE KINGDOM OF GOD." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. (Mark 12)

As important as keeping the commandments are, they don’t get you in the Kingdom of God. These people talk about Good Works with the Messiah and all they get to hear is “you lack something” or “you are almost there”. None are told that they made it in God’s Kingdom through their good deeds from Torah! Yeshua says that those that do these things, they are well on their way. The only thing they lack is believe in Him and following Him. This aspect of faith in Yeshua is essential for them to make it into God’s Kingdom. And this is exactly what Paul is echoing to the believers:

29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, WHO WILL JUSTIFY THE CIRCUMCISED BY FAITH AND THE UNCIRCUMCISED THROUGH THAT SAME FAITH. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? NOT AT ALL! Rather, WE UPHOLD THE LAW. (Romans 3)

6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. IT DOES NOT SUBMIT TO GOD'S LAW, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.

So we see, that Paul doesn’t negate the teachings of the Messiah, rather, he upholds them. I could bring more quotes from either Yeshua or Paul to the table to prove this point.

Now to the texts you raised in your feeble attempt to try to discredit Paul.

Romans 10:4: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for every one who believes." –paul

The greek word “telos” here is translated as “end” in nearly all translations. But this word doesn’t mean “end” as in cessation of things. It means “end” in terms of the means of things, namely, to accomplish something. For example: He reached for his wallet to the end, that he might pay for the groceries. The word “the end” here designates that the reaching for the wallet is a means to accomplish a particular goal!

So Romans 10:4 is just an unfortunate translation of what is to be understood as: “For Christ is the GOAL of the law for righteousness for every one who believes”

The GOAL of the Torah is to bring people into the righteousness of God. The Torah points to the Messiah, who is the Righteousness of God. Therefore, the Messiah is the GOAL of the Torah, that brings people to God’s righteousness through faith in Him. So no, Paul does NOT contradict Yeshua in Romans 10:4.

“Romans 3:28 (Paul) a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from WORKS of the law.”

James 2:24 (james) by WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by FAITH only.

You are taking one verse at the end of Paul’s demonstration to make a certain point. Reading this verse in context, Paul tries to make a certain point, demonstrating from scripture (Genesis 15), that FAITH is the most important part of the justification and salvation that God brings to the world NOT works. He demonstrates that as children of Abraham, we, like Abraham, are justified by God through faith, without works. Faith is our justification before God, our trusting in Him and not the works that we do. It is FAITH that brings us in God’s righteousness, and is the starting point of everything else. The WORKS come later and are the means by which we demonstrate our faith, that justifies us. Like I said, it’s a matter of BOTH AND and not of EITHER OR. Which is exactly what Jacob (James) is saying. James is trying to demonstrate an entirely different point, namely, how do demonstrate your faith. You don’t demonstrate your faith by doing nothing, but by your works. Since faith without works is dead and of no use. As he says:

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

James is trying to demonstrate “saving FAITH” while Paul is arguing for “Salvation through FAITH”. Paul is arguing for a STARTING POINT of Justification and James is arguing for a COMPLETE LIFESTYLE of Justification. Paul and James try to demonstrate totally different points and you quoting one verse isolated from their proper context doesn’t make them contradictory. But when those quotes are considered inside their proper context, they match and therefore once again Paul stands within the true testimony of the prophets, Yeshua and His brother in the flesh, Jacob. Paul did NOT corrupt the message of Yeshua.

I challenge anyone to demonstrate this. Now is your opportunity, Muslims, to finally put your money where your mouths are and show us where and how Paul corrupted the teaching of the Messiah. The irony is that you have to go to the “corrupted Gospels” to demonstrate Yeshua’s teachings not even being able to demonstrate how you can know if what you quote from Yeshua is an authentic of His. But go ahead. I’ll be waiting.

(sorry that I mispelled your name in the past)I will try and be better

you said:

Fat Man, I will await the third-party judgement and they will tell you my comment was in reference to the *** licking post from Wood. So until you bring this to the fore I will avoid communicating with you.

I say:

For the record like Fat man I also thought your comment was about Osama's wife beating comment. It was at the start of that thread after all.

However my impression of the event might be because I try to ignore profanity even implied profanity.

That being said I believe it's important to always give others the benefit of the doubt when trying to have a discussion and allow ample opportunity for clarification.

Maybe he should have asked you to clarify before accusing you of trying to mislead us.

So for the record do you agree with Osama’s position on wife beating or not?

Brother Nakdimon: great worke... yes: things are so easy to see trhate one mustte habe a fertille imagination not to see them and twist the meanings off Jesus/Paul and/or Paul/James... I tryied to bee short: Krishnaraj is not bery familiar withe the Bible, butt your comments, thate expanded whate I saide, are bery, bery clear... thankes and may God be with you!!!

Lest waite for some profs from Krishnaraj thate Paul twisted Jesus' message... are you seated? I guess we'll habe to waitte a lot...

I am from Bombay (Mumbai) many of you are aware of the 26/11 Islamic movement. The Islamic heroes granted Rest to above 250 Human beings.

They exhibited their Islamic love for humans at TAj, Trident, VT rail station and the Chabad House. The secular Indian media kept on reporting about the Islamic feast and counting people who were put to rest. Later the media reported that 40% who were put to rest were Muslims. The follower of the religion of peace at home and across our border, reacted by saying this is Jewish, Christian and Hindu conspiracy to get Fame to islam.

After Indonesia the second largest muslim population is in India. I really don’t hate the muslim but I dislike wahabbis

Please focus. My additional post was a series of questions that were ADDED as an additional problem for you to address if you are going to maintain your stance, hence not a strawman. Your hesistance to address the topic and the over-all issue is most probably a demonstration that you cannot. For an actual indepth response to your argument, address the article I referred to.

And yes I still recommend not blindly copying arguments from your brothers and reviewing your choice of argument.

My problem wasn't with you taking the argument, but blindly using such arguments and hence my suggestion to REVIEW which arguments you use. So there is no "irony" here as you suggested as I have read the article I referred you to and am well aware of the counter-arguments in the article I pasted, you however would have to accept anything willy-nilly supporting Islam to accept this as a legitimate argument for Islam.

Finally in answer to "which is better prohibition(Quran) or allowance(NT)?"

This was nothing but a false dilemma.

Western secular democracy is better.

And the only possible way to assume Islams prohibition of alcohol consumption is best is to ASSUME a Muslim version of Divine Command Theory i.e. "It's better because Allah said so and commanded it", of course we have no common ground here, as Allah doesn't exist, and even if he did, we cannot assume Allah is omnibenevolent and wants the best laws for humans when the Islamic sources shows the contrary.

And I say it lightly when I say "Islamic Prohibition of Alcohol", i'm being mighty generous.

Yahya Snow Fifth Monarchy Man said... “For the record like Fat man I also thought your comment was about Osama's wife beating comment. It was at the start of that thread after all”.

So there you have it. I'm not going to pester Dr David Wood to go through the comments section. If you say that’s what you were talking about then that’s what you were talking about. Like I said it’s not clear. I said I was giving you a pass on it. But the question remains you made the statement that Muslims admonished Osama for his Christian Licking article and condemned the article itself. Can you provide documentation on this? Also I do believe that the article is still up on Osama's site. But I could be wrong on that.

Yahya Snow as far as David Wood or Nabeel posting my comment, it was one sentence at the end of a fairly long post. I don’t think Doctors Wood or Nabeel go through each and every line of text of someone's post. BTW do you know why these posts are moderated? It’s because of your good decent friend Osama Abdullah.

Now either way the point is that after it was brought to Dr Wood’s attention he did admonish me, and did have me delete it. Something we have not seen a single Muslim do towards Osama Abdullah either for his Wife Beating Post, or for his article entitled "Christians are Cum Lickers"

Now I’m glad that you believe Osama was "incorrect," in his article that he wrote and posted on his website. However saying someone is incorrect is a far cry from an admonishment and a condemnation. No where near "UNACCAPTABLE" statement that Dr Wood rebuked me with. See we Christians hold each other to a higher standard. Just a side note, it hasn’t gone UN noticed you using the Muslim escape clause when referring to anything a Muslim posts. The famous “IF”. I find your use of it amazing, since Osama posted the article on his website, an article I believe is still up to this day. But I could be wrong on that.

Now in reference to Yahya Seymour condemning me to hell. I never asked you to apologies for him. I don’t see how you could think I was confusing you with him since in my comment I did say it was Yahya Seymour. Yes I know there is more then one Muslim named John posting in this blog. Something by the way Osama Abdullah didn’t understand when it came to the different Johns in the Bible, in his debate with Dr James White. That has come to be known as the Kitchen sink debate. But since you bring up my statement which was wrong (notice I don’t say incorrect) on Yahya Seymour’s wife. Do you think it was wrong for Yahya Seymour to curse me to hell?

Now as far as your “Threat to stop talking to me”. Oh no don’t do that please, Yahya Snow anything but that. Yeah not going to loose any sleep over that one. But let’s see you asked for third party arbitration, and Fifth Monarchy Man provided it for you. So it’s up to you. If you stop interacting with me I guess I will just have to find something else to amuse me. Maybe I will go to the Dentist and have my wisdom teeth removed with out anesthesia. :)

I would like to add more to JAMES 2:24:"man is justified by works and not by faith only."

SAVING FAITH

JAMES HIMSELF explains just one sentence before what he means,he means what we call "saving faith".A faith that SHOWS ITSELF as sincere by works.

IF you are really saved,IF you have a real faith,then sooner or later your life will show it.With some it takes longer,some progress very quickly.

JAMES AGAIN

JAMES 2:23:"So was accomplished what Scripture says:"Abraham BELIEVED (NOTE:had faith) in GOD and that was IMPUTED to him as JUSTICE(NOTE:because of that faith Abraham was declared a JUST man,justified.).""

#1) The Fat Man, dear brother, yahya Snow seams like those childs who when confronted say: "you're not mie friend any more; I'll stoop playing withe you"... butt in the bottom off things, he's just going through a bad patch: he saide it so here; so: let's keep our support to him;

#2) when Yahya Seymour cursed you into hell I was terrifies... really terrified... It looked like I was seeing someone thate, iff he coulde, woulde kill you without any hesitation... butt remembrer, brother The Fat Man: he has scottish blood and suffered some bad moments when he decided to become a muslim and, abobe all, he saide he's nott a biolent person; so: we must read his words in these context and understand thate they are nott saying anymore than whate they're saying...

Well I do bring out the Islam in the muslim. Its a gift really :) To be honest i really did push his buttons. I was really out of line.

I just get sick and tired of hearing western reverts to islam who obvioulsy become muslims as a form or rebellion against their parents. Islam is the new gateway drug for the anti social, suburbanite back yard rebel.

You circumnavigated the question:I ask which is more superior; the prhibition of the intoxicant named alcohol (which the Quran prhibits) of the allowance of such an intoxicant (which the NT allows)???

The question still remains.

Reamarkbaly you answered the question with a statement in favour of secular democrarcy. From that I assume you are a non-Christian (am I correct)? I say this as Christianity does not teach secular democracy. Secular democracy in Europe (I am British) only came about after powers and influence was wrestled away from the Church. The Church were and still are (in the UK) opposed to secular democracy. Hence you seem like a non-Christian.

Also the counter arguments to NA's line of argument (which I utilised) are all academic due to their straw man and anaemic nature.

Howver, seen as I have championed NA's argument (and he is not around) I plan to (insha'Allah) to author a response to Shamnoun's argumentations concerning the alcohol issue.

I must also add that this is all dependent on time so please do not qoute me on this; I merely intend to carry this task out IF I can free up some time for this task. I have other topics I would like to discuss which essentially take priority over this issue.

It would help if NA responded in person as this would leave me redundant of such work.

Is NA still around? Is he still in apologetics?

DK..

Going back to the alcohol issue.It is not a theological issue. It is a simple point which entails common sense, ie it is better not to consume alcohol than to consume alcohol due to the cancers (topical in the UK at the moment) linked to it as well as the other negative health implications.

You circumnavigated the question:I ask which is more superior; the prhibition of the intoxicant named alcohol (which the Quran prhibits) of the allowance of such an intoxicant (which the NT allows)???

The question still remains.

Reamarkbaly you answered the question with a statement in favour of secular democrarcy. From that I assume you are a non-Christian (am I correct)? I say this as Christianity does not teach secular democracy. Secular democracy in Europe (I am British) only came about after powers and influence was wrestled away from the Church. The Church were and still are (in the UK) opposed to secular democracy. Hence you seem like a non-Christian.

Also the counter arguments to NA's line of argument (which I utilised) are all academic due to their straw man and anaemic nature.

Howver, seen as I have championed NA's argument (and he is not around) I plan to (insha'Allah) to author a response to Shamnoun's argumentations concerning the alcohol issue.

I must also add that this is all dependent on time so please do not qoute me on this; I merely intend to carry this task out IF I can free up some time for this task. I have other topics I would like to discuss which essentially take priority over this issue.

It would help if NA responded in person as this would leave me redundant of such work.

Is NA still around? Is he still in apologetics?

DK..

Going back to the alcohol issue.It is not a theological issue. It is a simple point which entails common sense, ie it is better not to consume alcohol than to consume alcohol due to the cancers (topical in the UK at the moment) linked to it as well as the other negative health implications.

Ok... fried eggs, sugar, dates (the fritt) can all ceratte adiction, cause cancers and many other medical problems...

so: let's nott teach how to make a good and moderate and benefical use off them and let's forbade its consume as an all... its easier to forbade (allthough more inmature and despoticc) than to teach...

Only a narcisistic and egomaniac person woulde nott see the truth off the following Paul's words (thate follows Jesus's example) and rather choose the logic off the "forbade, "forbade", "punish, "punish", "kill", "kill"... go Bubu, nice dog, woulde say some people...

1 Corinthians 6:12 'For me everything is permissible'; maybe, but not everything does good. True, for me everything is permissible, but I am determined not to be dominated by anything.

You need to give proof for your claim. you cant just say muhammed is liar, tell why he think he is liar. and we discuss it. otherwise it is just like accusig jesus for bieng a gay, just because he is not married and he had male companians. just because he used to wash their feet andfeed them. so lets not play that card.....you will find yourself in a receiving end soon. there where people before in this community use this tactics they gave up when some of us used the same standard to messure christianity and the its founder. so lets be fare to each other. just because we muslims do not insult jesus doesnt mean that you can tell anything. in the other hand if you make a claim with proof from authentic source, lets discuss it.

I say this as Christianity does not teach secular democracy. Secular democracy in Europe (I am British) only came about after powers and influence was wrestled away from the Church. The Church were and still are (in the UK) opposed to secular democracy. Hence you seem like a non-Christian.

I say:

You seem to be confusing the medieval Catholic church and the state churches of the magisterial reformation with Christianity.

Are you familiar with the ancient Christian position typified by the Anabaptists and later groups like the Baptists? These Christians have always been in favor or the separation of Church and State and can be found everywhere even in Europe. They trace their roots back to the earliest times and find support for there view in the Bible and the Church fathers. They (we) would argue that the merger of church and state in the Roman empire was at best a huge mistake and at worst an apostasy for which the advent of Islam is part of the punishment.

It’s these devout Christians whose ideas prevailed in America and eventually Europe as well. The comparative strength of Christianity in the US today would tend to prove them right and most Christians now recognize that.

If you are interested I can recommend some good books to familiarize yourself with this topic. It would be important to know this stuff if you intend it interact with Christians in the future.

You say:

Going back to the alcohol issue.It is not a theological issue. It is a simple point which entails common sense, ie it is better not to consume alcohol than to consume alcohol due to the cancers (topical in the UK at the moment) linked to it as well as the other negative health implications.

I respond:

I would disagree. In some cases it is better to abstain and in others it is better to consume. That’s the problem with prohibition it does not allow for judgment based on circumstances. A much better approach would be a guideline that allows for consumption but places well defined limits. Like the Bible

You say:

May Allah guide us both and help us further in this life. Ameen

I say:

May Yahweh in his grace grant us mercy and peace and rest from our labors through the blood of the lamb instead of just help.

I must ask where is the Muslim world? where is the jihad? where is the fighting for the cause of allah? can't the muslim world see what is happening & yet no protest. They only seem to agitate against Christian & Jews, when muslim kills muslim, burns quran & desecrate their mosque, its fine. But when somebody else just makes cartoon then their are fatvas all over the world.Over again & again i have to believe this: In my whole life i have seen many good muslims but never never a sensible & prudent muslim.

Yahya Snow said... "FifthMonarchyManThanks, your view is duly noted. I shall adopt a more concerted effort for clarity in comments from now on in so this type of confusion does not ensue again."

Ok good to know that you will make a better effort at clarity. I did notice that this comment was not addressed to me.

Also you still seem to be running from your orginal statement. I'm still waiting for the documentation that Muslism Admonished and or Condemmed Osama Abdullah for his lovely article title, Christians are lickers. Oh by the way you using the common muslim escape clause of "If he did write that" just doesnt cut it. The article all though renamed is still on his website.

In defending your lack of clearity, and or your lack of documentation to back up your statement you accused me of "misrepresenting" you and "defaiming" you. Now I really dont expect a appology from you for these sladerous statements against my character. To be honest I dont expect anything from muslims. I have learned long ago that to hold a muslim to any standard of decency, integrity, or honesty is just setting one's self up for a major disapointment. So since I no longer hold muslism to any standards I no longer get dispointed when they fail to meet the most basic levels of humanity.For that matter I dont think most muslims hold themselves or each other to any real level of honesty, integrity, or decency. Thats why there is no condemnation or admonishment when muslims practice their relegion on non muslims or as the case of this article on their own kind.

Well either way let me know if we can continue in our "friendship". Keep in mind that I am very demanding, and have high standards.

ok... let's try this: Jesus did not denied the law thate was given to Moses rather gave it it's definitive fullfillement and interpretation... the "LAW" for Christians now is Jesus: nothing more, nothing less...

aboute Paul/James... when I recieve a loving kiss from my father and accept theate kiss I'm told thate I'm his son (justification); due to thate fact (being felt loved inconditionaly bie him) I want to live a loving life (good works)... the love I recieved is the source off the love I give... the first without the other woulde make me an egoístic person (and egoísm is the oposite off true love); the latter without the first woulde be an egocentric attempt to deserve something from my father...

You saide thate muslims do not insult Jesus... habe you realized thate denieng what and whom He is is not an insult? habe you realized thate denieng whate happened to Him in accordance to His will is not an insult? they are: islam is an insult to Christianity (and all non-muslims bie the way) from its start...

never the less I understand whate you say... I thought thate all the points I presented bie muhammad were indiscutible ones...

aboutt muhammad liying... justte an example: did not muhammad tell Hafsa thate her father (Omar Khattab) wanted to speak to her (when he did as this one latter discobered) in order to get her out off her home so he coulde habe sex with her servant Mariyah? was this a lie? or is this a lie?

Krishnaraj: Thank you Nakdimon and Fernando. I will really be glad if you could answer many questions I have. I appretiate the time you took for the same.

Krishnaraj, I will be glad to answer any question you have.

You need to give proof for your claim. you cant just say muhammed is liar, tell why he think he is liar. and we discuss it. otherwise it is just like accusig jesus for bieng a gay, just because he is not married and he had male companians. just because he used to wash their feet andfeed them. so lets not play that card.....you will find yourself in a receiving end soon. there where people before in this community use this tactics they gave up when some of us used the same standard to messure christianity and the its founder. so lets be fare to each other. just because we muslims do not insult jesus doesnt mean that you can tell anything. in the other hand if you make a claim with proof from authentic source, lets discuss it.

Well, for one, Muhammad is a liar since he accused Jews of worshipping Ezra and Allah is a liar for claiming that Jews believe that Ezra is the son of God. Let’s start with this one and then jump to the next claim of Allah and/or Muhammad.

Allah says: [Shakir 9:30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

When oh when did the Jews say this? And notice that this is a universal claim, not some tribe in Arabia that may or may not have existed. And even if that was the case, which saying did they imitate “of those who disbelieved before”?

Now let’s go to Muhammad: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s: Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri: We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon when the sky is clear?" We said, "No." He said, "So you will have no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon (in a clear sky)." The Prophet then said, "Somebody will then announce, 'Let every nation follow what they used to worship.' So the companions of the cross will go with their cross, and the idolators (will go) with their idols, and the companions of every god (false deities) (will go) with their god, till there remain those who used to worship Allah, both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, and some of the people of the Scripture. Then Hell will be presented to them as if it were a mirage. THEN IT WILL BE SAID TO THE JEWS, "WHAT DID YOU USE TO WORSHIP?' THEY WILL REPLY, 'WE USED TO WORSHIP EZRA, THE SON OF ALLAH.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?'…

So the Jews will be asked who they used to WORSHIP and they will say EZRA instead of HASHEM? Who, when, where? Care to explain this?

Krishnaraj... sorry to place two postes... I forgot to presente this before: are you saying thate all people thate does not get married and habe male companios are gay?

Butt He did not habe only male companions... the Gospels speak off several women thate followed Jesus during his public life...

So: are you saying He was gay because He did not marry? I know thate you are presenting an idiotic supposition, butt youre presupositions are nott true... on the other hand the facts about muhammad speak for themselfes...

nevertheless: habe you noticed thate we Christians debate ani claime muslims do (eben when we fell ofended) and muslims, on other side, manie times just start screming: "offense"; "offense"... and run away without the disposition to explaine why we are being offenfive...

ok... let's try this: Jesus did not denied the law thate was given to Moses rather gave it it's definitive fullfillement and interpretation... the "LAW" for Christians now is Jesus: nothing more, nothing less...

Hi kabayaan are you sure about this? for christians now(!) LAW is jesus.are you sure?

ashraf asked: «Hi kabayaan are you sure about this? for christians now(!) LAW is Jesus. are you sure?»...

hi ashraf... as you can seen in my post I placed law in between quotation marks... and this is not from now... Jesus is the new convenant, the new "torah", the new "law" from the start... that's why Paul (Romans 13:9-10; Galatians 5:14), understandind what Jesus preached and did, saide thate love summons the law... the only law Christinas do follow is Jesus and Jesus being God (who is Love) the only law we follow is love: Jesus... Jesus is the new "torah"; He alonne brings the "torah" of the messianic age as He brings the Kingdom of God into action... It is the "torah" of peace and love of an Abba (a loving and cherishing Father; this is: God) Who clothes lillies and feedes birds and makes the sun shine and the rain following on all persons, being them good or evil, who forgibes and Who healls... that's whie the double commandement of love towards God and towards fellow humans summons all the law (Matthew 22:36-40)...

butt I imagine thate you knew this... and I beliebe you wanted me to say this... so: where's the catch? whate do you want to say to me? I'll bee righte here...

Yahya, no i'm not a Christian. And it seems you are trying to divert Nadir Ahmed into responding to the article I posted, which only means you cannot respond. It isn't a time issue as you have had time, instead of responding to me on the blog you could have easily just posted a rebuttal linking to your website, even if you rebutted the most essential points and kept minor points for some other time. So indeed please do check arguments before blindly copying Nadir.

As for which is better Alcohol or no Alcohol, i'll let Allah answer this question for you:

And We have not sent down upon thee the Book except that thou mayest make clear to them that whereon they were at variance, and as a guidance and as a mercy to a people who believe. And it is God who sends down out of heaven water, and therewith revives the earth after it is dead. Surely in that is a sign for a people who have ears. And surely in the cattle there is a lesson for you; WE GIVE YOU to drink of what is in their bellies, between filth and blood, pure milk, sweet to drinkers. And of the fruits of the palms and the vines, YOU TAKE THEREFROM AN INTOXICANT and a provision fair. Surely in that is a sign for a people who understand. And thy Lord revealed unto the bees, saying: 'Take unto yourselves, of the mountains, houses, and of the trees, and of what they are building. Then eat of all manner of fruit, and follow the ways of your Lord easy to go upon.' Then comes there forth out of their bellies a drink of diverse hues wherein is healing for men. Surely in that is a sign for a people who reflect. S. 16:64-69 Arberry

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!